-
PART I INTRODUCTION
-
PART II INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
-
2.INSTITUTIONAL, POLICY, REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR RURAL SANITATION AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
-
2.1 Overview
-
2.2.Institutional Arrangement
-
2.3.Policies and Regulations
-
2.4 Discharge Standards
-
2.5.Sources of funds
-
2.6.Typical provincial cases
-
2.7.Conclusions and recommendations
-
-
-
PART III TECHNICAL BASIS
-
3 Overview of Rural Sanitation and Wastewater Management
-
3.1 Domestic Wastewater
-
3.2 Rural Toilets in China – Source of Black Water
-
3.3 Decentralized vs. Centralized Rural Wastewater Management
-
-
4 Rural Wastewater Treatment Technology
-
4.1 Preliminary Treatment
-
4.2. Primary Treatment
-
4.3 Secondary Treatment
-
4.3.1 Attached Growth Process
-
4.3.2 Suspended growth Process
-
4.3.3 Waste Stabilization Pond
-
4.3.4 Constructed Wetlands
-
4.3.5 Subsurface Wastewater Infiltration Systems
-
-
-
5 Wastewater Treatment Process Design
-
5.1 General Design Consideration
-
5.2 Sewage Collection Alternatives
-
5.3 Wastewater Treatment Process Design
-
5.4 Water Reuse
-
5.5 Sludge Management
-
-
-
PART IV PROJECT PLANNING AND DESIGN
-
6 Project Planning and Design
-
6.1 Diagnosis for Project Villages – Initial Community Assessment
-
6.2 Establishment of Stakeholder Group
-
6.3 Assessment on Existing Conditions and Community’s Capacity
-
6.3.1 Physical Conditions Assessment
-
6.3.2 Community’s Capacity Assessment
-
-
6.4 Baseline Engineering Survey and Assessment
-
6.5 Project Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Assessment
-
6.6 Selection of Operation Model
-
6.7 Project Cost Estimate
-
-
7 Community Participation
-
7.1 Why Need Community Participation?
-
7.2 Principles of Community Participation
-
7.3 Community Participation Activities
-
-
-
PART V PROJECT FINANCING
-
8 Financing, Subsidies, and Cost Recovery
-
8.1 Programmatic Costs
-
8.2 Project Implementation Costs
-
8.3 Project Financing
-
8.4 Subsidies
-
8.5 Cost Recovery
-
-
-
PART VI PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT
-
9 Procurement and Implementation
-
9.1 Procurement Principles
-
9.2 Procurement Alternatives
-
9.3 Procurement Planning
-
-
10 System Adminstration, Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring
-
10.1 Introduction
-
10.2 Management and Administration Arrangement
-
10.3 Operation and Maintenance
-
10.4 Reporting and Monitoring
-
10.5 Operator Training and Support
-
-
-
Appendix: Case Studies – Rural Wastewater Management in Zhejiang, Shanxi, and Jiangsu Province
-
1.Zhejiang Province
-
2.Shanxi Province
-
3.Jiangsu Province
-
4.Summary
-
-
REFERENCES
8.3.1 Alternative Sources of Funds
- Categories: 8.3 Project Financing
- Time of issue: 2022-04-28 10:56:03
- Views: 0
As China moves forward with its ambitious programs to expand coverage of sanitation throughout rural areas, a variety of funding sources will be employed to support these efforts. Although the Central Government is allocating substantial funds to the sanitation sector, additional funds will be needed in various locations to address the site-specific issues to improve sanitation. To support its efforts, the Central Government will be relying on local municipalities, counties, and villages to contribute finances. Households will also be expected to contribute monetary and/or non-monetary contributions to complete projects.
This section describes the alternative funding sources and mechanisms commonly used to finance sanitation projects. These funding sources apply to both capital expenditures (CAPEX) or operation expenditures (OPEX) related to on-site or off-site (centralized) sanitation facilities.
In general, there are three common funding sources for sanitation projects. Table 8.1 outlines these three sources and the financial mechanisms:
- User or private funds,
- Public funds from the government agencies, and
- External funding sources from non-governmental organizations and philanthropic organizations.
Table 8.1. General Financing Sources for Sanitation Projects (Tremolet, 2007)
Sources of Funds |
Type of financing mechanism using those funds |
Users of the service (private) |
|
Public funds from the government agencies |
|
External Sources (NGOs, INGOs, charities) |
|
There are debates as to what sources of finances should be used to cover the cost of different components of a project. Many government institutions and NGOs consider on-site (decentralized) sanitation facilities as home improvements and therefore investments should be financed by households. Nevertheless, the reality is that many households in rural areas do not have the financial resources to pay for sanitation facilities. The Central Government has taken the initiative to assure that publicly funded subsidies will be an important component of the financial strategy adopted in China. Given that sanitation is a public good (poor sanitation conditions impact public health, the environmental and economic development), subsidies or external funds are sometimes appropriate when needed to expand coverage. The common reason that sanitation needs to be subsidized is to make it affordable to the poorest households in a community.
Normally, financing options for rural sanitation projects include private or self-financing, a combination of private and public funds, and purely public funds. Evans et al. (2009) have prepared a summary of the various financing options for different rural sanitation options (decentralized and centralized systems) including the advantages and risks associated with each, as shown in Table 8.2 and Table 8.3.
Issues for consideration in financing rural on-site sanitation systems. In more traditional on-site sanitation systems, the capital costs are typically lower than a centralized wastewater system. Subsidies of these projects are often justified as a way to encourage demand for improved services. Another popular approach is to provide a revolving fund which theoretically allows poorer households to ‘borrow’ funds to construct a sanitation system and to pay the funds back over time, thereby enabling another household to benefit later. However, without a good peer support program, many revolving-fund-based projects have failed when the households have failed to repay the loan. A major problem with these approaches is related to targeting – it is often not the poorest and most disadvantaged that are able to access and/or make use of these funds. A second problem is that these programs may skew technology choices, encouraging households to build systems that may not be appropriate (i.e. installing pour flush latrines in communities that do not have piped water to the households).
Issues for consideration in financing centralized or off-site systems. Off-site systems usually consist of household connections to a sewer network and a wastewater treatment plant. The cost for connecting to the sewer is usually borne by the household or partially funded by the household and government. The costs for the sewer network and wastewater treatment plant are publicly funded recognizing that these improvements are for the public good. Two major problems have been common to this approach. First, the high cost of a connection often means that poor or unserved households are unable to access the publicly financed network service. The simplest mechanism to offset high initial connection costs is to amortize this cost through surcharges to the monthly sewer service bill. Another option is to establish a progressive connection fee based on income and allow for cross-subsidies so as to allow higher income households to assist poorer households to connect to the sewer.
The second problem is that the coverage of the sewer network may be limited by design, focused on the central portions of a community and not serving topographically low or poor districts on the fringe of a small town. Adopting small bore sewers and appropriately scaled and lower-cost solutions can be used to increase coverage of a rural community.
Table 8.2 Financing Options for Rural On-site Sanitation Facilities
(Evans et al., 2009)
Financing Mechanism |
Advantages |
Risks |
Financing Source: Purely Private (Users of Service) |
||
Self Financing: households invest in their own facilities |
|
|
Financing Source: Combination of Private and Public Funds |
||
Support for software with low/no subsidy for hardware: |
|
|
Micro-finance to households for sanitation improvements |
|
|
Loans to small-scale providers |
|
|
Non-financial support to small scale providers: training, product-development, business development services |
|
|
Output-based aid: grants to households or communities or to small scale service providers based on successful construction and use of facilities |
|
|
Community cross-subsidies: users contribute to the most needy households in cash or kind |
|
|
Partial infrastructure subsidy: users contribute in cash or kind |
|
|
FINANCING SOURCE: PURELY PUBLIC FUNDS |
||
Full hardware subsidy (CAPEX – capital expenditures)
|
|
|
Table 8.3 Financial Options for Centralized Village Wastewater Projects
Financing Mechanism |
Advantages |
Risks |
Financing Source: Purely Private (Users of Service) |
||
Self Financing: households invest in their own facilities |
|
|
Financing Source: Combination of Private and Public Funds |
||
Support for software with low/no subsidy for hardware: |
|
|
Micro-finance to households for sanitation improvements |
|
|
Loans to small-scale providers |
|
|
Non-financial support to small scale providers: training, product-development, business development services |
|
|
Output-based aid: grants to households or communities or to small scale service providers based on successful construction and use of facilities |
|
|
Community cross-subsidies: connection charges paid for from general revenue of the service provider or local utility |
|
|
Partial infrastructure subsidy: users contribute in cash or kind |
|
|
FINANCING SOURCE: PURELY PUBLIC FUNDS |
||
Full hardware subsidy (CAPEX – capital expenditures) |
|
|